What should Vermont do about guardrails that could endanger drivers? Before state transportation officials make their decision, they want to see what the federal government does.
“The minute we do something in one section of the system, it (raises) the question of what do we do somewhere else,” Sue Minter, Vermont Transportation Agency deputy director, said at a meeting in Stowe last week. “We are taking it seriously, but anything we do right here, we’ve got to consider it everywhere.”
The problem involves an energy-absorbing end terminal. These caps, often black-and-yellow-striped, are stuck on the ends of guardrails and are meant to soak up the impact if a vehicle slams into them.
Bloomberg News has an informational graphic explaining how end terminals work: bit.ly/deadlyrails.
But a leading manufacturer of these end terminals, Trinity Industries, is being accused of making a dangerous change in its design a decade ago without telling the federal government. A whistleblower, a Trinity competitor named Joshua Harman, brought the lawsuit, claiming that Trinity’s design changes can cause guardrails to pierce cars and even amputate limbs.
On Oct. 20, a jury found Trinity liable for defrauding the federal government and levied a $175 million verdict against the manufacturer. Since then, a federal judge has ordered both sides to mediation.
The new Route 100 bridge over Gold Brook in Stowe is designed just like 5,900 other perfectly safe bridges throughout the state, according to state transportation officials. But the guardrails belong to a smaller, possibly deadly, sample of roughly 60 bridges where Trinity end terminals were installed.
Vermont has removed the Trinity parts from its approved product list for all future projects, as have more than half the states in the nation, even though those parts are still on the federal government’s “approved” list.
Minter said Trinity parts have been on the approved product list since 2005, and they have had safety tests twice, and have been improved. But, she said, Trinity declined to tell the government about the changes it made in the end terminals between 2002 and 2005.
State Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe, asked Minter why the state was still using the guardrails if Trinity had been under scrutiny for changes made a decade ago.
Minter said the Vermont Agency of Transportation relies on the federal government to ensure product safety, and the lawsuit is about fraud, not about defective components.
“If not for safety, then because they defrauded the federal government,” the state removed them from future projects, Minter said. “That’s reason enough in my view.”
VTrans Chief Engineer Rich Tetreault said all “end treatments” are being looked at for safety, and if any become damaged, they’ll be replaced with non-Trinity ones.
He said that, even though a number of graphic videos can be see on the Internet, in which cars hit terminal ends and are sliced up the middle, the components are still considered safe by federal highway authorities.
“Certainly the horrific videos you’ve seen have not happened in Vermont,” Tetreault said.
Stowe Town Manager Charles Safford said the guardrail ends look pretty intimidating. He and Public Works Director Harry Shepard — who has experience with bridge engineering — don’t like the design of the Gold Brook bridge guardrails. The guardrails run straight parallel with the road, as opposed to flaring out at the ends; that’s called a tangential design.
The flared designs have a more rounded design, and don’t look as aggressively head-on.
Tetreault said the state prefers to not use tangential bridges, but there are 5,900 of them in Vermont. VTrans used a tangential design in Stowe because of right-of-way issues on both sides; two property owners and a town road are on either side of the bridge.
State Sen. Rich Westman, R-Lamoille, said the Gold Brook bridge is important not just to Stowe residents, but anyone commuting over it.
“Route 15 and Route 100 are the lifeblood of transportation in Lamoille County,” Westman said. “It has repercussions way beyond just Stowe.”
Scheuermann advised Stowe to take the lead, at least with these four end terminals.
“If it costs us money, then it costs us money,” Scheuermann said. “Vermont might be able to take the lead on this.”
Minter said the Federal Highway Administration pays 80 percent of the cost of most road and bridge projects. If the federal government decides the Trinity end terminals need to be replaced, the state would get reimbursements, but if the state did it alone, it would have to pay the full cost. And, if the state replaces the ends in Stowe, it will have to replace them throughout the state.
Minter said federal officials have not outlined a timetable for dealing with the problem. It’s possible Trinity would have to pay penalties that will help cover replacement costs. So far, Vermont has not estimated how much it would cost to replace all the Trinity terminal ends in the state.
Tetreault also said VTrans has much more pressing problems on Vermont roads, from ledge outcroppings and trees leaning over the road, and then there are the dangers workers would face while replacing the terminals.
“Wearing my safety hat, if I’m going to spend money, I’m going to look at the safety data in context of everything,” Tetreault said. “If I’ve got $10 to go out and spend on safety, there are other areas that we, as stakeholders, could spend and do more good.”
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexual language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be proactive. Use the "Report" link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.